3 ms·

What's "legal" would be up to a jury. Note, however, that a deep pocket could bankrupt you simply through legal mechansims such as discovery.

• dragonwriter 9y ago
  Strictly speaking, what is legal is up to a judge, and whether the evidence shows that you've done what is legal may be up to either a jury or a judge depending on whether it's a jury or bench trial.
  • DrScump 9y ago
    Strictly speaking, what evidence is admissible is up to a judge. In a jury trial, what is legal is up to the jury. Juries can still nullify, as was made clear in the Zárate verdicts.
    • dragonwriter 9y ago
      Strictly speaking, even when the jury nullifies, it does so by answering questions of fact, not law (even though some or all of the jurors may be substituting judgements of law for fact.) And, even more strictly speaking, in a civil case (which this subthread is addressing) it's all up to the judge anyway, even in a jury trial, since (unlike in a criminal case, where this can only happen to the benefit of the defendant, as a judgement of acquittal), a decision for either party may be entered, after the jury verdict, as a judgement as a matter of law (aka judgement notwithstanding the verdict.) This makes nullification essentially a dead issue in civil trials.
    • torstenvl 9y ago
      You are incorrect, sir. The judge decides all questions of law, and the jury may not do so. That is why juries are given jury instructions by the judge. Jury nullification in a criminal case is an oddity, but that is not a decision about the law (and is not binding in future cases), nor is it applicable in the civil context we are discussing.